The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has significantly advanced cancer treatment. However, only 15-30% of the cancer patients respond to ICI treatment, which stimulates and enhances host immunity to eliminate tumor cells. ICI treatment is very expensive and has potential adverse reactions; therefore, it is crucial to develop a method which enables to accurately and rapidly assess a patient's suitability before ICI treatment. We complied germline whole-genome sequencing (WES) data of 37 melanoma patients who have been treated with ICIs and sequenced in our lab previously, and the WES data of other 700 ICI-treated cancer patients in public domain. Using these data, we proposed a novel double-channel attention neural network (DANN) model to predict cancer ICI-response and validate the predictions. DANN achieved a mean accuracy and AUC of 0.95 and 0.98, respectively, which outperformed traditional machine learning methods. Enrichment analysis of the DANN-identified genes indicated that cancer patients whose in-born genomic variants might mainly affect host immune system in a wide-ranging manner, and then affect ICI response. Finally, we found a set of 12 genes bearing genomic variants were significantly associated with cancer patient survivals after ICI treatment.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, single nucleotide variants (SNVs) have been identified as having a significant relationship with the development and treatment of diseases. Among them, prioritizing missense variants for further functional impact investigation is an essential challenge in the study of common disease and cancer. Although several computational methods have been developed to predict the functional impacts of variants, the predictive ability of these methods is still insufficient in the Mendelian and cancer missense variants. RESULTS: We present a novel prediction method called the disease-related variant annotation (DVA) method that predicts the effect of missense variants based on a comprehensive feature set of variants, notably, the allele frequency and protein-protein interaction network feature based on graph embedding. Benchmarked against datasets of single nucleotide missense variants, the DVA method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by up to 0.473 in the area under receiver operating characteristic curve. The results demonstrate that the proposed method can accurately predict the functional impact of single nucleotide missense variants and substantially outperforms existing methods. CONCLUSIONS: DVA is an effective framework for identifying the functional impact of disease missense variants based on a comprehensive feature set. Based on different datasets, DVA shows its generalization ability and robustness, and it also provides innovative ideas for the study of the functional mechanism and impact of SNVs.

Somatic mutational signatures (MSs) identified by genome sequencing play important roles in exploring the cause and development of cancer. Thus far, many such signatures have been identified, and some of them do imply causes of cancer. However, a major bottleneck is that we do not know the potential meanings (i.e. carcinogenesis or biological functions) and contributing genes for most of them. Here, we presented a computational framework, Gene Somatic Genome Pattern (GSGP), which can decipher the molecular mechanisms of the MSs. More importantly, it is the first time that the GSGP is able to process MSs from ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing, which greatly extended the applications of both MS analysis and RNA sequencing (RNAseq). As a result, GSGP analyses match consistently with previous reports and identify the etiologies for a number of novel signatures. Notably, we applied GSGP to RNAseq data and revealed an RNA-derived MS involved in deficient deoxyribonucleic acid mismatch repair and microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Researchers can perform customized GSGP analysis using the web tools or scripts we provide.

Greetings and welcome to the fifth issue of IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (TCSS) for 2023. This edition presents a collection of 55 diverse regular articles that illuminate various facets of the interaction between computer technology and society.

At present, some methods have been proposed to solve the problem from the perspective of the chaos degree in gene functions or interaction network. However, errors in differentiation potency estimates arise if the scRNA-seq profile and underlying interaction network are disturbed by technique-induced or biological-induced noise. Thus, we proposed SPIDE, a single cell potency inference method based on local cell-specific network entropy. SPIDE constructs the weighted cell-specific network for each cell to preserve the heterogeneity of PPI network during differentiation, then estimates the entropy based on each network. The results show that SPIDE reveals better decreasing trends of cells’ differentiation potency than other state-of-the-art methods on most datasets. To conclude, our study provides a universal framework for cell entropy estimation with higher prediction accuracy and universal applicability.

Research in computational biology has given rise to a vast number of methods developed to solve scientific problems.For areas in which many approaches exist, researchers have a hard time deciding which tool to select to address a scientific challenge, as essentially all publications introducing a new method will claim better performance than all others.Not all of these claims can be correct.Equally, for this same reason, developers struggle to demonstrate convincingly that they created a new and superior algorithm or implementation.Moreover, the developer community often has difficulty discerning which new approaches constitute true scientific advances for the field.The obvious answer to this conundrum is to develop benchmarks-meaning standard points of reference that facilitate evaluating the performance of different tools-allowing both users and developers to compare multiple tools in an unbiased fashion.Broadly speaking, benchmarks consist of input data that methods are meant to operate upon, expected output data against which tool output can be compared, a specification of metrics used to assess performance, and performance values of sets of tools that have been run through the benchmark.Developing good and comprehensive benchmarks, in which the performance metrics of each tool reflect its real-world utility, requires a significant effort.For highly competitive and established fields, such as protein structure predictions, community experiments evaluating the methods have been held periodically to provide blinded assessments of prediction performance.These blinded assessments are perhaps the gold standard on how benchmarks should be run.However, in most areas of computational biology, no such regular blinded contests are available.Instead, many tool developers end up generating their own benchmarks, which they publish alongside a newly developed tool to show its improved performance.The downside of this approach is that, if a new approach is developed in parallel to assembly of the benchmark on which it is evaluated, there is a strong selection bias encouraging the authors to report tool development approaches performing well against the benchmark compared to previous tools.This reporting bias makes most benchmarks that accompany newly developed tools questionable.Even if the authors are aware of this problem and take conscious steps to separate